The largest review of medicinal cannabis to date found it doesn’t effectively treat anxiety, depression, or PTSD—despite millions using it for those reasons. Researchers warn it could even make mental health worse, raising risks like psychosis and addiction while delaying proven treatments. Some limited benefits were seen for conditions like insomnia and autism, but the evidence is weak. The findings are fueling calls for stricter oversight as cannabis use continues to rise.
Nah it was fine. The original post doesn’t read like someone “opening up about their struggles” so much as someone who added a bit of personal context within their response to the article.
That may have been their intent, but it wasn’t clear. Many people could have made similar remarks about having “abused” alcoholc and cannabis without it having been as detrimental of an addiction in their lives as it now seems that it was for this person.
I’m sorry this Comrade went through it. Really. And I’m glad moderation is working out for them, but damn… y’all overreacting.
This site features a pig shitting on its own balls. Someone CAN for sure open up about addiction here, but they would need to make that context clear within its own post or a dedicated thread.
And this wasn’t that. And so pig-shitting-on-balls mentality is to be expected imo.
Awesome job, no notes.
You’ve commented how this site is juvenile. It can be for sure. I gave a response detailing when to expect that. Pretty calmly, clearly, and respectfully.
You then give this response, not engaging with the main point. Jesus, again…y’all overreacting.
The quoted “abused” isn’t meant in a negative manner. Not hard to see.
If I felt compelled to debate every time someone used silly motivated reasoning to justify whatever lets them diffuse criticism, I would never do anything else, and I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen the same dogshit arguments about how it’s a shitposting website so of course it’s backwards in this and that way.
What are the quotation marks accomplishing?
Edit: if someone talks about how they struggled with drug abuse and then says that they think someone using those drugs daily probably has a problem, saying such a behavior is “being cool :dance-emote:” is obviously inappropriate and insensitive and you are just giving meaningless sophistry deflecting away from that fact.
The same thing they were meant to do when quoting “opening up about their struggles”…literally just quoting the OP’s words.
You’re thinking about it too much.
This isn’t a case of blindly defending shitposting. This is a case of: if leftists want to be taken seriously and change the world…stop getting so damn butthurt about everything.
I’d agree with you if the OP made a dedicated post about his struggles and then had someone respond like this.
But his post does NOT read like that. It just doesn’t.
Either you communicated in a seriously incompetent manner or this is horseshit. If use of a recreational drug has no ill effects, it’s not abuse, so there is no point in quoting “abused” to describe non-abuse in this context.
Socialism necessitates the ruthless criticism of everything that exists, but I don’t think we need a point so extreme in order to just say that when someone is speaking earnestly about their addiction you don’t trivialize it in this manner, and your made up rules about how it needs its own thread or whatever is nonsense when the OP is about a study on the effects of pot posted in the science comm.
My main point is that his post did not read like someone speaking earnestly about their addiction! It read like someone who was giving slightly more context to their main point by alerting the reader that they’re very familiar with alcohol and cannabis.
Had it read as you’re suggesting it does, I’m arguing that the response he got with the emoji would never have happened.
But it wasn’t clear. And so he got that response…
The dude’s first point is about everything in moderation, and if that’s not the case then there’s probabaly something wrong underying it all.
In no universe is the main point in the original passage (given again below), “i want to earnestly talk about my addiction”:
He mentioned having problems with drug abuse and was giving his view on drug abuse in a way that was obviously based on that context. He doesn’t need to write a fucking memoir about how drinking ruined his life for the response to be inappropriate, the simple fact alone is enough.
Lol ok. My god.
@Dr_Pepper@hexbear.net stick around, man. Just try to be clearer if you could when looking for serious replies.
Ah, wow. OK. A deeper answer into what the quotes are achieving is that my initial point was this: the exact language OP used is also routinely used in posts by people who did NOT have such a rough addiction, yet did go through a phase where they abused those drugs for a small period in their life. So i quoted the language to highlight it.
Hence my whole point of it not being super clear.
You’re grasping here.
Great, I’ll mark it as being in the incompetent box then, rather than the horseshit one.
“It” being the commenter talking about struggling with substance abuse? No, I think it’s still clear that he was saying it was a bad time and that he doesn’t advise doing what he did.
My main point is that his post did not read like someone speaking earnestly about their addiction! It read like someone who was giving slightly more context to their main point by alerting the reader that they’re very familiar with alcohol and cannabis.
Had it read as you’re suggesting it does, I’m arguing that the response he got with the emoji would never have happened.
But it wasn’t clear. And so he got that response…
The dude’s first point is about everything in moderation, and if that’s not the case then there’s probabaly something wrong underying it all.
In no universe is the main point in the original passage (given again below), “i want to earnestly talk about my addiction”: